Criminal Appeal filed by an appellant convicted of rape against a mentally challenged girl. The High Court rejected the appeal, relying on the FSL report, the prompt FIR, and the appellate court thereby discharged the appellant from bail and ordered his surrender and remand to jail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
te'
:.t^ c?<:^'
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 565 of 2001
Raj Kumar alias Horilal Sinha S/o Chhanulal Sinha, resident of village - Vendarwani Police Station - Kurud, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG)
-—Appellant
Versus
State ofCG through the Police Station, Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG
-—Respondent
ForAppellantit::l,;;'%,,'s Sjiri SheBHjBKiashta, Advocate. For ResRQfKlent-State Shri Bhaskar Payas]tB',£Panel Lawyer
Hon'bl€iEhirK)uis(ieeP. Sam Koshv
»lud|[Knct6 on Board
03/01/2017
The appellant in the,.B:]^BlW^|igeal stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sect(orl;3%gisU,:£i|l(IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for .seNfficTyeacs with fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further undergo Rl for three months vide judgment dated 21.06.2Q01 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No.340of2000.
"--
^/
-2-
:i.:
f^t. IE
informed her grandmother regarding the incident and in the evening when her father returned from the field, she narrated the incident to him. Later on, an FIR was lodged on the same day evening by the prosecutrix PW10. On the very next day i.e. 25.08.2000, the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination and after due investigation, the matter was put to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari where the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 340of2000.
~—-^/
c
-3-
body of the prosecutrix or on her private part. It was further contended by the counsel for the appellant that according to the statement of the prosecutrix she was dropped on the field and in such an event, the prosecutrix was bound to receive certain injuries if she was forcefully raped on the field. But, the doctor did not find any scratch mark on her body during examination. Thus, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the benefit of which should go to the appellant.
1 2015 AIRSCW 4035 2 2008 AIR SCW 33 3 3009 AIR SCW 5909
-4-
^t
8 . Opposing the appeal State counsel submitted that it is a case where the prosecution has in fact been ab\es to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. State counsel taking the Court through the evidence of the prosecutrix submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve her statement particularly considering the mental and physical status of the prosecutrix. He submitted that no explanation whatsoever has been given by the appellant to suggest that the averments made by the prosecutrix are per se false and he has been falsely implicated. In response to the submission made by the caurisel for the appellant regarding the non raising of an,,al|iri-n;fiir!'ie<pi,iiSta!te coi.tnssl|rBei|ed toihe statement ofthe proseeutri^ wherein she has categorically stated ftTalI^t'i^appellant had pressed her cheeks hard-<S|!^<'jw1^fi en had also threap-fed her with dire consequences in cas8'sB§5W®||"'callfor help, therefore, she could ^'^f^-!'")^ not raise any alarm. The'ye'r|E|fgiiggQt the appellant is alleged to have the cheeks ofthe p.i-QgiisflBlife.hard itselfgives sufficient indication tsWAA-. !h that the appellantwas n9t|Ii£ fB|a|;ig|Hcirt of cordial relationship with the prosecutrix or else there was na tte^d for pressing of the cheeks of the prosecutrix hard during the course of commission of the offence. According to the State counsel, the evidence of the prosecutrix stands fully corroborated from the evidence of PW-11 Ghanaram father of the prosecutrixasalsoPW-12Jainbai grandmotherofthe prosecutrix. In addition, the FSL report also shows the presence 6f semen on the under garments of the appellant and he has not given any satisfactory explanation regarding the same. So far as the injury not being sustained by the prosecutrix on her body as well as her private part is concerned, according to the State counsel thatwasnotthenecessaryingredient
v
c
IMi
-5-
^-
Q)
alone for establishing the question of rape and the same may not be found in certain cases. Thus, prayed for rejection ofthe appeal. 9. Having considered the rival contentions put forth by the counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of the record what clearly reflects is that an FIR was promptly todged on the same date of the incident i.e. 24.08.2000. The prosecutrix was medically examined on the very next day in the morning. The investigating Agency in addition to recording of the statement of the prosecutrix had also collected certain incriminating materials like the clothes which.tbe prosecutrix was wearing at the time of incident. Anpthei ffis |BiWfirig"Tactorsi^i^Mh!atbeeFi,fo in the course of investigation was that the under garments of boll'gil^.prosecutrix as c-V-f,!1:,:well as the appellant had'SQB'l^i'lf-iMM^on it which has b^Westablished in the FSL report. The rh|iSBi%')®ctafltJaspect in the instant case is that the prosecutrix is a mentalge|6|:ia|Ip|8fed girl. The medicat evidence as well as thenote prepared b^gjyiig^ions Court conducting the trial also shows that the prosecutitiKstsiSi^^IU^htally fully developed fbr quickly grasping the surroundings a.ndA&.jquestions put to her. She had to be slowly and repeatedly asked a thing for her to understand and only then she would reply. If the statement of such a girl is taken into consideration, there can be very less chance of insinuation being made falsely implicating the appellant. Further no prudent person would like to file a false complaint putting his grown up daughter to the risk of the social stigma that would be attached to her all her life. Further, such a risk would never be taken particularly when a girl is physically challenged. This very fact itself strengthens the case of the prosecution. 10.~ Now, if we look at the circumstances revolving around the case, it would .clearly reflect that there is a prompt report lodged by the
-6-
' i i
s
prosecutrix. After the incident, the matter was immediately reported to the family members and the family members also have supported the case of the prosecution. In the course of medical examination, the fact regarding sexual intercourse stands established as there was trace of semen found in her private part. Likewise, semen was also found on the undergarment of the appellaht which has also been established from the FSL report and there is no proper justification or explanation to rebut the FSL report. All these facts go against the appellant. So far as the argument of the counsel forthe,app§|lant that there was no necessary mark found offithe <IJ'FWE'*3^cea^efrs||sQi')ieerne<j, the same may not have oGCt.lrred for the reason that the prosecutrix WSsS|[9tBittedly wearing her clothes when she hajjc§ofi^ ]Uafyi?l(:land if she was!'i8»0feped to the ground, the clothes must',|asfBBSai®1Bhegirl from receiving such scratch marks or any other injuries^®?jBft!6^|tfhavearisen from the field.
'-/
c
^£.^.^^l>k.l
-7-
sentSnce imposed on hitp;
Sd/-
P.SamKoshy Judge
"Bhola
/i!P.,-ffd tAJ
Vw-^%Sii-fj,^S''a'Bn'BBBsssaw' w "
"'l- i
»i.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court is sustainable in view of the absence of injuries on the prosecutrix and the medical report suggesting habitual sexual intercourse.
Whether the FSL report regarding the presence of semen on the appellant's undergarments warrants the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
Whether the cited precedents involving mentally challenged victims are applicable to establish the appellant's guilt in the present fact pattern.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Keshar SinghDistinguished¶50
2015 AIR SCW 4035 · Who else cites this
Ujjagar Singh v. State of PunjabDistinguished¶50
2008 AIR SCW 33 · Who else cites this
Suchita Srivastava & Anr. v. Chandigarh AdministrationDistinguished¶7
2009 AIR SCW 5909 · Who else cites this
Raj Kumar alias Horilal Sinha S/o Chhanulal Sinha
State of CG
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
